Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets by using a novel Computer-Aided Management (CAM) approach
Article Metrics Report
Views, downloads, citations, engagementCited by
Current citation countResearch summary
The minimal availability of scientific literature suggests that managers hardly consider internal organizational consequences as organizational Alignment, implementation effort, and Capacity to change when setting strategic targets. This study bridges this gap in the literature by employing a self-developed algorithm that assists managers by focusing on consequences that would make the target’s implementation nearly impossible. In our study: too little organizational alignment, setting too ambitious targets, and insufficient capacity to change. We first quantified how 3,300 managers in 500+ organizations set targets by themselves in terms of these three consequences. We defined this group as Classical Management (CM). Then, in the second batch of 1,000 managers in 90 organizations, we provided our algorithm that quantified their targets' internal consequences. We defined this group as Computer-Aided Management (CAM). Our finding is that comparing two target-setting approaches (CM versus CAM) indicated that the latter chose targets with a “consequence score” six times better than the former. Our recommendation: in an organizational transformation, ask as many employees and managers as possible and let an algorithm upgrade their input to refine the decision-making process.
Article History
How to Cite
Poll, J. V. D.. (2022). Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets by using a novel Computer-Aided Management (CAM) approach. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Volume 16 Issue 02.
Citation Context
APA
Poll, J. V. D.. (2022). Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets by using a novel Computer-Aided Management (CAM) approach. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Volume 16 Issue 02.
MLA
Poll, Jan Van De. "Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets by using a novel Computer-Aided Management (CAM) approach." Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Volume 16 Issue 02, 2022.
Chicago
Jan Van De Poll. "Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets by using a novel Computer-Aided Management (CAM) approach." Journal of Business and Retail Management Research Volume 16 Issue 02 (01 May 2022).
Harvard
Poll, J. V. D. (2022) Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets by using a novel Computer-Aided Management (CAM) approach. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Volume 16 Issue 02
References
- Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting - positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31, 819-841. DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.03.007
- Alagaraja, M., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploring organizational alignment-employee engagement linkages and impact on individual performance: A conceptual model. Human Resource Development Review, 14(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314549455
- Bain K K, Firli I, And Tri S (2016) Genetic Algorithm for Optimized Initial Centers K-Means Clustering in SMEs, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology (JATIT) 90 p 23Davenport, T. H., Libert, B., & Beck, M. (2018). Robo-Advisers are coming to consulting and corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review.
- Davenport, T. H., Libert, B., & Beck, M. (2018). Robo-Advisers are coming to consulting and corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review.
- Diamond, I. D., McDonald, J.W., & Shah, I.H. (1986). Proportional hazards models for current status data: application to the study of age at weaning differentials in Pakistan. Demography 23(4), 607-620. DOI: 10.2307/2061354
- Donaldson, S. I., & Grans-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology 17(2), 245-260.
- Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of work stress: Objective vs subjective measurement of work stress and the question of longitudinal studies. In: C. L. Cooper, & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, Coping, and Consequences of Stress at Work (pp. 375-411). Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
- Guttman, L. (1950). Chs. 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 in SA Stauffer, L. Guttman, EA Suchman, PF Lazarsfeld, SA Star and JA Clausen. 1950. Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, 4, 46-90.
- Hassan, S. (2013). The importance of role clarification in workgroups: Effects on perceived role clarity, work satisfaction, and turnover rates. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 716-725. Retrieved February 27, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42003000
- Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022465
- Ilmudeen, A., Bao, Y., & Alharbi, I.M. (2019). How does business-IT strategic alignment dimension impact on organizational performance measures: Conjecture and empirical analysis. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(3), 457-476. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2018-0197
- Kathuria, R., Joshi, M.P., & Porth, S.J. (2007). Organizational alignment and performance: Past, present and future. Management Decision, 45(3), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710745106
- Kircovali, S., & Cemberci, M. (2020). Organizational change capacity: A scale development. Journal of International Trade, Logistics and Law, 6(2), 182-188. Retrieved February 25, 2021, from
- http://jital.org/index.php/jital/article/view/212
- Levene, H. (1960). In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling, I. Olkin et al. eds., Stanford University Press, pp. 278-292.
- Olshausen, B. A. (2004). Bayesian probability theory. The Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
- Palthe, J. (2014). Regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of organizations: Implications for managing change. Management and Organizational Studies, 1(2), 59-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/mos.v1n2p59
- Plewis, I., & Mason, P. (2007). What works and why: combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in large-scale evaluations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 185-194.
- DOI: 10.1080/13645570500154659
- Ramezan, M., Sanjaghi, M. E., & Baly, H. R. K. (2013). Organizational change capacity and organizational performance: An empirical analysis on an innovative industry. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 5(3), 188-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKIC-07-2013-0012
- Self, D.R., Self, T., Matuszek, T., & Schraeder, M. (2015). Improving organizational Alignment by enhancing strategic thinking. Development and Learning in Organizations, 29(1), 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-08-2013-0053
- Sitkin, S., See, K., Miller, C., Lawless, M., & Carton, A. (2011). The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. The Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 544-566. Retrieved February 27, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41319185
- Uhlaner, L. M. (2002). The use of the Guttman scale in development of a family business index. (No. H200203). EIM Business and Policy Research.
- van de Poll, JM (2018) Ambition patterns in strategic decision-making, Doctor of Philosophy, Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Bilthoven.
- van de Poll, JM, (2021) An Alternative to the Likert Scale When Polling Employees. The international journal of business & management.
- van der Hoek, M., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. (2018). Goal setting in teams: Goal clarity and team performance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38(4), 472–493.
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X16682815.